mioasndo

So, your argument is that personal choice can be ignored in favour of your personal definition of 'public health'? Take your logic a step further - why can't we just completely ignore your personal opinion of what's a public good or what is 'public health'? Another step further - ignore everyone's opinion of what's public good and have a small group of elites define this for us? Your argument is nothing more than blanket support for literally any top-down policy which labels itself 'for the public good'. Yawn.

Say something of substance instead of alluding to some 'illogical' argument you supposedly found but are unable to identify.

> These loose groups of people can indeed influence the public, and are using this ability to promote vaccines.

There is nothing loose about the US media and political establishments. If you watch mainstream media with any regularity you'd think it was two departments of one corporation.

> The problem is that some folks are jumping to the conclusion that they are doing this because they want to sacrifice their own interests to increase profits for big pharma.

I didn't see anyone make that claim. There are many extensively documented cases of collusion between government and media. 9/11 coverage, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars, virtually any coverage of foreign adversaries (Russia, China, Iran), vaccines, etc. being some obvious examples.

> I know it's comfortable to think that the world's largest economy is entirely under control of three companies, but I see no compelling evidence that this is the case.

Oh yeah, can't think of anything more comfortable to think of!

So you're just going to pretend that the entire media and political establishment (at least in US) as well as many industries (ex. big tech) are not strongly supportive of big pharma when it comes to the vaccines?

Are you going to pretend people are not being actively censored, banned, cancelled, fired for being vaccine-sceptical?

Do you not believe that the extensively-documented mass manipulation of public opinion is a thing?

If this is the fantasy land you want to base your reasoning in, then I accept that we have different starting points but your reasoning is compelling under your starting point.

> If the vaccine is safe.

Something you don't know. If you want a sincere discussion you might want to at least admit the obvious.

> If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logically).

First of all you don't know if it's cheaper. Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is. I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.

> If tracking the vaccine is easier.

Why do you keep with the 'if, if , if'? I did not make any assertions or assumptions that intersect with your ifs whatsoever. All of your 'ifs' are completely irrelevant, and I'm guessing by the fact that you start explaining every supposed hole with an 'if', that you understand that you can't even verify the validity of these supposed holes you found.

> Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense.

Because natural immunity is more effective and some people do not want to get the vaccine?

> You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."

I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:

- We do not know the long-term side effects of mrna vaccines.

- MRNA vaccine efficacy is lower than natural immunity, and all data points to MRNA vaccines wearing off significantly after 6 months.

- Some people may not want to get the vaccine for other reasons, the actual reasons are completely irrelevant - in a free society people get to choose what biologically active substances they inject into their own bodies.

> You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:

So looks like you did notice one of the reasons I gave you? Interesting that you quoted it, yet completely ignored the substance and failed to challenge or respond to the actual point.

> If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people,

Stop with the 'ifs'. If you don't know the validity of your own point, don't make the point.

> for the other stated benefits (logical, tracking, and cost).

These other stated benefits coming directly from your imagination right? Or are these the 'if' kind of benefits?

'IF the vaccines are a perfect solution, we should forcibly vaccinate everyone.' - cool story bud

> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).

That's not a valid reason at all.

> We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need.

We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do.

> We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost).

Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to vaccine passports and covid testing.

> The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe.

That's just your 'implicit assumption'.

> Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards.

Except vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity and vaccine efficacy wears off over time. We literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.

> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals.

Your comment here is a distraction. You literally haven't brought up a single fact or data point on vaccine vs natural immunity efficacy.

> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue

How is it a settled issue when there is literally zero data on long-term effects?

> you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.

Cool story bud.

:(

I think you're 100% right on both counts.

> Every single company that sells things does this.

Nope.

> It is a bit bizarre that your comment, or variations of it, appears for every single Apple release. For those people so jaded and annoyed at the existence of Apple, why not just skip those threads?

For those people so jaded and annoyed at people critiquing apple - why not just skip those threads?

> There's something unique about Apple that draws in the detractors, however (seriously -- just look at the comments! What a junkyard of noise).

Maybe the only unique thing here is your need to defend apple with no arguments other than your own annoyance at apple being criticised?

The only place windows is competitive is desktop - a small and shrinking piece of the market.

Not getting vaccinated is a stupid decision, but smoking is not? Or you think people are spontaneously addicted to smoking, drinking, drugs? Or you think that people randomly decide to not get the vaccine because they just wake up stupid one day? Guess what, in a free society people can choose what they put in their bodies, regardless of how much pleasure you think they get from it, or how stupid you think it is.